Of it's self Atheism makes a simple statement, a rejection of the belief in deities. There is nothing else here, no philosophy of life, of conduct, no political insight and no philosophy of economics. There is no statement, as to moral conduct, decorum, social interaction. There is no indication of Rights and obligations of,both citizen and government.
Under Marxism and too, Communism, Atheism is embraced by government and, as the theism's force themselves on the people,as history demonstrates.Does such an Atheistic government pick up the mantle of a godly omnipotence, and if so, is there a difference?

Atheism rejects the belief in god/s, not god/s as no Atheist possesses universal intelligence and it would be foolish to make such a claim. The exercise of reason however,give proper indication that a god/s do not exist. That one would reject a god, may allude to the premise that there may be a god to reject. A side thought.

Tags: Atheism, Rights, and, obligations, philosophy, theism

Views: 1427

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Atheism offers a chance to learn the truths that religion pretends to know.

I would agree and to add, explore that, which to the theist is unthinkable.

Also another opportunity to 'think out of the box!'

On your side-thought. Something does not have to exist to reject the idea of it. That's what's so great about brains. They can create all sorts of loony ideas, ripe for rejection (or in the case of deliberate fiction, to be enjoyed as such).

We evolved asking questions without knowing the answer, but we answered anyway. We invented the gods to provide answers. We evolved and asked more question and gave more answers, which caused more questions and more answers. It was not a looney idea, it was the best we could do. From those looney ideas we finally came to the point that the gods were not enough and a higher degree of critical thinking evolved. Is it a looney idea to think of the universe, as three dimensional? Serious science is now underway to rethink that premise, a premise, which may be considered a looney idea in ten years.
I recently attended a rather large gathering of retired professionals from all walks of life, to include a large contingent of religious people. They were quite convinced that to embrace Atheism was so far fetched that no reasonable person would even consider it. A similar position to yours.

I completely agree with you that it was not a looney idea at the time it was conceived. We have the luxury of hindsight where we can ridicule primitive tribes for explanations of things such as earthquakes and lightning in terms of the supernatural. If I had been born centuries ago I'm sure I would have considered the idea of God more than reasonable. What I never understand about most religions is why everything has to remain so static. We've all moved on from such thinking as getting hit by lightning is God smiting you. I merely contended that it is possible for brains to invent ideas that do not correspond to reality in any way. Rejection of those ideas is not a concession that you are rejecting something that might actually be true.

There is nothing else here, no philosophy of life, of conduct, no political insight and no philosophy of economics.

It's true that non-believers don't have any specific mutual ethical, political or economic theory. However there is a strong tendency for atheists towards humanism: tolerance and open mindedness, compassion for the suffering, basic human rights, democratic government and rational and empirical based knowledge.

Under Marxism and too, Communism, Atheism is embraced by government.

While it's true that Mao and Stalin were oppressive, very few contemporary Western atheists would agree with their ideology or style of leadership. Humanists are appalled by what they did and those who still support it. We can't guarantee an atheist government would be oppressive but at least while atheists tend towards humanism it seems fairly unlikely.

That one would reject a god, may allude to the premise that there may be a god to reject. A side thought.

No. I reject The Purple Mushroom People of Saturn. that doesn't allude to any premise that Purple Mushroom People of Saturn might exist. God is no different regardless of the billions who believe in him.

I have embraced Atheism for over 55 years, to include a foxhole in Vietnam, and I have never considered myself an un-believer. I believe in the sovereignty of the individual and that the human capacity to reason is on a par with anything that may exist. I believe that Man is the ultimate guide to his own destiny and that there is no obstacle, self imposed or through nature that Man cannot over come. For me, that is a believer. For those that refute or deny that position are, in fact, the un-believers, as they turn their backs on the essence of Man, the capacity to reason,the reality of existence and embrace a promise of a promise, a nebulas belief in what is not.
There are a great many theists who embrace your tenants, but I am not sure that I do. I do not see democracy, as a guardian of anything, as I find the Stalin adage, "Democracy is the only road to socialism," to be accurate and I think that it would follow that, "Socialism is the only road to Marxism." a fitting follow through on that.
I am not quite sure what tolerance means. Is it to embrace a difference to the point that who and what you are is absorbed by that, which was embraced though a philosophy of tolerance?
Purple Mushroom People may exist on Saturn. I cannot prove , at this point, that they do not, can you? Admittedly, it is doubtful that they do, but since I do not possess a universal intelligence, I would be foolish to assert categorically
they they do not. This, I think, comes with an open mind to possibilities. The same applies to the gods. Based on what we now know of the universe, and that such knowledge is a contradiction to the beliefs and practices of theisms, it is unreasonable to accept such a existence, but not to adamantly deny. There is always that possibility that you may be all-knowing however.

Yes, atheism itself is the rejection of the belief in any gods. Although, a characteristic of most people who are atheists are that they are agnostic atheists. We don't know that a god exists and that's why we are agnostic and at the same time we don't see a reason to believe in one, therefore, we are atheists. Very few atheists will claim that there are no gods at all with absolute certainty.

Also the burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim. You can't switch it over to someone who merely rejects the claim because they aren't convinced that what you are claiming is even true. With our knowledge of our weather system, would you accept someone saying that rain droplets are bowls of ice-cream sundaes before they leave the clouds? We have planes passing through clouds daily all over the world and no one has ever had a report of being covered with ice-cream sundaes while flying through the clouds. Keep in mind that there is always a possibility, but when you consider the conditions and the probability you can rule out the ideas that don't work. That's how science works. Finally, we have no reason to believe the claims stating that raindrops are sundaes because our reality does not portray any examples of that even being a possibility.

That is open-mindedness, but our 5 senses are the best way to navigate our physical world, not through how we feel about it. Most of us do not adamantly deny the existence of god. The anger of many atheists come from the persistence of religious proselytizing.


I have never heard agnostic and Atheist used in such a combination. Can we use agnostic theist in a similar context? This is like the politician who attempts to agree with all sides, on all issues simply for the purpose of not having to take a position.
I had the occasion of meeting Madelyn Murray O'Hare in San Francisco a couple of times. I have never met a stronger or more committed human being. In a meeting with several others, she was asked what she thought of agnosticism. Her reply was, essentially monosyllabic, but her reference was a comparison to a chicken sitting on a fence. There is sufficient evidence for any one capable of objective reasoning to conclude that gods do not exist. I would venture that anyone embracing such a perspective is, essentially, that chicken hiding behind academia.
I would think that it is the reasoned Atheist who would refrain from an assertion that he possesses the ultimate knowledge or truth of what may or may not exist in or outside of the universe.---Serious study is now underway that may prove that the universe is two dimensional, not three. Yesterday I would have sworn that the universe was three dimensional. Now I don't know.
Your analogy, unlike Kris's does not work.I do understand what you are trying to say however,. I will reject the unbelievers claim of deities, not because I am in possession of a truth, but from a reasoned perspective, as a juror must do in a trial.

I read a recent post on here that was very insightful...something like....

Ask theists what it would take for them to become atheists...They would respond: "nothing could make us give up our beliefs !"

Ask atheists what it would take for them to believe in god...They would respond: "a multitude of things, If real evidence appeared today, there would be few atheists."



I disagree. There is not sufficient evidence to be certain that a god does not exist. It is 99.999999% likely there is no god but no amount of scientific investigation can give absolute certainty of the non-existence of something.

I like the phrase "the absence of evidence is not evidence of non-existence". We have to allow for that 0.00001% possibility for anything. That doesn't mean we at the moment (and probably until the end of man) should take any discussion about god seriously. That would be stupid. But claiming 100% certainty that he doesn't exist is pretty far out there as well.


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service